R. v. Lochner, 2025 ONCJ 230

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2025-03-27
Court File No.: 24-48110944
Region: Toronto

Between:

His Majesty the King
— and —
Silvano Lochner

Before Justice H. Pringle
Heard on February 24, 25, 26, and 27, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on March 27, 2025

Counsel for the Crown: Thomas Surmanski
Defendant: Silvano Lochner (self-represented)

Overview of the Case

[1] The defendant is charged with criminally harassing Douglas Letsche, by repeated direct and indirect communications between May 2, 2022, and March 26, 2024, causing Letsche to reasonably fear for his safety.

[2] The Crown elected summarily, and a contested trial was held where Mr. Lochner represented himself.[1] The Crown called one viva voce witness, Mr. Letsche. The defence elected to call none.

[3] After considering the evidence as a whole, and the submissions of the defendant and Crown, I found the Crown’s case proven beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Lochner must be found guilty of the sole count of criminal harassment.

Overview of the Facts

[4] Douglas Letsche is a police officer with the Toronto Police Service (TPS). For years, he worked with the Emergency Task Force (ETF). Before this trial, he had not met Mr. Lochner in person. But Mr. Lochner has been emailing him for years.

[5] Mr. Lochner undisputedly sent numerous emails, both directly and indirectly, to PC Letsche. He also sent three emails, in March 2024, to PC Letsche’s brother-in-law.

[6] The defendant’s emails all pertain to events from almost eighteen years ago. In August 2006, the ETF executed a Feeney warrant to arrest Mr. Lochner. While executing that warrant, the officers repeatedly tasered Mr. Lochner’s disabled brother.

[7] For almost two decades, Mr. Lochner has pursued his belief that a police and government cover-up exists in relation to this event. For years, he has been emailing police officers, supervisors, freedom of information officials, other government officials, lawyers, and judges to either accuse them of participating in a cover-up or to seek help in exposing one.

[8] It was in this context that Mr. Lochner started emailing PC Letsche. PC Letsche was a member of the ETF team that executed the Feeney warrant to arrest him. But Letsche was not there on that day. He had injured himself, earlier in the day, and was not present when the warrant was executed.

[9] Right up to his trial, Mr. Lochner has believed Cst. Letsche to be part of the alleged cover-up of the tasering of his brother.

Content of the Emails

[10] This court was provided with 89 emails sent by Mr. Lochner. All were sent either directly or indirectly to PC Letsche. Most of them included PC Letsche as a “cc” recipient, along with a long list of other people. These included ETF officers involved in the tasering incident, their supervisors, government officials, the premier, one of his ministers, the mayor, court operation officials, lawyers, and judges.

[11] Many of the emails mentioned PC Letsche by name, in reference to the tasering event and his belief in a cover-up. But not one of these emails contained any overt threat. Every email advanced the topics of his brother’s tasering, the unclear identity of all officers who deployed tasers on his brother’s body, and Mr. Lochner’s belief in a cover-up.

[12] In other words, the content of most of these emails was relatively innocuous. Clearly Mr. Lochner believed there was a government conspiracy and that his emails would somehow expose that cover-up. He often emailed multiple times per day, although there were some significant temporal breaks in these communications.

[13] While the evidentiary record in Mr. Lochner’s case established emails sent between 2022 and 2024, PC Letsche testified to receiving Mr. Lochner’s emails since 2006. He streamed them into his junk mail folder. At some point, he spoke with a supervisor about it and was told to ignore them. Letsche felt his complaint was not taken seriously, but he did as he was directed.

[14] The emails stopped at some unknown point but began again in spring 2022. PC Letsche sent the first few “up the chain” and continued to stream them into his junk mail. He would periodically check to see if Mr. Lochner had said anything of concern.

[15] On April 30, 2022, Mr. Lochner emailed him amongst many other recipients:

The ETF tasered my autistic brother with three different M26 Tasers and then conspired to claim they only deployed two Tasers.
The paramedics who treated George noted in their Ambulance Call Report that the ETF tasered George three times, 6 darts.
THEREFORE, THE CROWN ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE BEEN PROTECTING THE POLICE SHOULD RESIGN IMMEDIATELY, AND THE CRIMINAL ETF OFFICERS MUST BE ARRESTED.
As per Sgt. Mark Armstrong’s #1107 sworn deposition his Team 5 consisted of the following ETF officers on August 11, 2006:

1. PC Domenic Bruzzese;
2. PC David Bragg;
3. PC Stephen Carmichael;
4. PC William Shikatani; and
5. Gissa Waters.
   There were only two other personnel on duty, station operations PC Lesa Harvey and PC Doug Letsche.
   However, Letsche was injured during a bed-race on the Danforth and went home to cry.
   IN 2006 ALL THE M26 TASERS WERE ASSIGNED TO THE ETF – NO ONE ELSE.
   Therefore, Taser M26-19421, which was assigned to the ETF in 2006, could only have been deployed either by
   • PC David Bragg; or
   • PC William Shikatani
   PC Domenic Bruzzese deployed Taser M26-03496;
   PC Stephen Carmichael deployed Taser M26-15704;
   PC Gissa Waters remained outside the Lochner residence and did not deploy a taser;
   Sgt. Mark Armstrong was not carrying a Taser.

[16] This email ended with cut and paste information, apparently from the Ontario Sunshine List, about the salaries of Csts. Letsche and Harvey. Portions of this email were subsequently cut and pasted into other communications.

[17] This was the email that Officer Letsche, upon its receipt, forwarded “up the chain” in case a response of some kind was required. He received a similar email the next day and forwarded that one too.

[18] By early June 2022, Mr. Lochner began emailing PC Letsche directly, while continuing to “cc” other police officers and justice system participants. The tenor of these emails was the same: alleging a conspiracy to cover up use of a third taser on his brother. Some were more specific – for example, demands for the memobook notes of PC Harvey became an incessant theme.

[19] Some were directed at PC Letsche himself, albeit in an innocuous manner at the start. For example, on one occasion Mr. Lochner wrote:

Hello PC Doug Letsche
Training Constable – ETF
300 Lesmill Rd.
Toronto, Ontario
I trust you remember back in 2006 when you were a SWAT operator, you injured yourself on August 11th in a bed race on the Danforth, and therefore you had to take the day off.
The remaining SWAT operators that afternoon at 300 Lesmill Rd were as follows:

1. Sgt. Mark Armstrong;
2. PC Dominic Bruzzese;
3. PC David Bragg;
4. PC Stephen Carmichael;
5. PC William Shikatani;
6. PC Gissa Waters- Ruocco;
7. PC Lesa Harvey
   The first six SWAT operators were assigned to Team 5, who later that afternoon executed a Feeney warrant at the Lochner residence.
   ***[2]
   WHO IS THE ONLY REMAINING ‘SWAT OPERATOR” WHO HAD ACCESS TO TASER 19421 ON AUGUST 11, 2006?
   THE ANSWER IS SWAT OPERATOR PC LESA HARVEY.
   THEREFORE, AS THE TRAINING CONSTABLE WITH SWAT (“ETF”), WHY WOULD PC HARVEY DEPLOY TASER M26-19421 FOUR TIMES AT ETF HEADQUARTERS ON AUGUST 6 2006 AS SHE WAS THERE BY HERSELF, AS THE “STATION OPERATOR”?

[20] Mr. Lochner later concluded the ETF was falsely attributing non-operational deployment of this taser on PC Letsche. He alleged a wide-ranging conspiracy around not disclosing PC Letsche’s notes and emailed many government and court officials to assert a cover-up. Again, many of these emails were cut-and-paste documents taken from other emails he had sent. On September 7, 2023, he said:

….EVEN YOU WILL AGREE THAT IF TASER M26-19421 WAS NOT DEPLOYED BY A MEMBER OF ETF TEAM 5, THEN IT COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN DEPLOYED BY PC DOUGLAS LETSCHE, THE REMAINING ETF OFFICER.
THEREFORE, WHY DID PAUL McGEE OF THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICE INDICATE ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2020 THAT IT WAS NOT LOGICAL TO SEARCH FOR THE MEMORANDUM BOOK NOTES OF ALL ETF OFFICERS WORKING THE AFTERNOON SHIFT OF AUGUST 11, 2006?
IS IT BECAUSE THE MEMORANDUM BOOK ENTRIES OF PC DOUGLAS LETSCHE WILL CONFIRM THAT HE DID NOT DEPLOY TASER M26-19421 ON AUGUST 11, 2006?
THEREFORE, AS POLICE USE OF FORCE IS GOVERNED THROUGH REGULATION 926 OF THE POLICE SERVICES ACT, WE SHALL SEE IF THE OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIRECTOR TAKE MY RECENTLY FILED COMPLAINT SERIOUSLY, AND ASK THE TORONTO POLICE TO PRODUCE PC DOUGLAS LETSCHE’S MEMORANDUM BOOK ENTRIES FROM AUGUST 11, 2006, OR IF THE OIPRD WILL SWEEP MY COMPLAINT UNDER THE CARPET.

[21] PC Letsche acknowledged that this type of email was concerning, but not frightening. But he was concerned about the persistence of Mr. Lochner’s focus on an incident from seventeen years prior. He was concerned about the persistence of Mr. Lochner’s focus on himself and one of his colleagues. He was concerned about the fact that Mr. Lochner included the home address of that colleague in one of the emails.

[22] PC Letsche said he never forgot the fact of these emails, but mentally categorized them as having been sent from an emotionally disturbed person. He concluded that Mr. Lochner was dissatisfied with results in court and was reacting by “lashing out” at people, including himself, via email.

[23] At some point over the years, PC Letsche took it upon himself to learn what Mr. Lochner looked like. He kept perusing the emails to see if “things would jump”. That said, he continued to assess the emails as being of low concern which did not cause him to “lose sleep at night”.

[24] That changed on March 25, 2024, when PC Letsche got a call from his brother-in-law Matthew. Matthew had just received an email from Mr. Lochner. It was sent to Matthew’s work email. It was directly addressed to Matthew, who was not a police officer. He was a school board employee. He was worried, unsure what to do, and did not understand why he was getting this email.

[25] PC Letsche was on his way home when Matthew called. He decided to look at the email tomorrow at work. But he was concerned about this contact. His brother-in-law was not a police officer, or government official, or lawyer and had no connection whatsoever to the tasering incident from (now) eighteen years ago.

[26] Then his brother-in-law texted. Mr. Lochner had emailed him again. PC Letsche, who had been cc’d, decided this could not wait until tomorrow. He went into his junk mail to read the emails. After doing so, he concluded they were a “marked departure” from Mr. Lochner’s past communications.

[27] Firstly, the emails sent to Matthew made it apparent, to PC Letsche, that Mr. Lochner had researched his family members online. These emails referenced personal information about his family. The officer concluded this personal information had been gleaned from his parents’ online obituaries:

Hello Matthew B [omitted][3]:
I understand you are Doug Letsche’s brother-in-law.
Therefore, I would like to express my deepest condolences for the passing of Herbert, Diane and Karl Letsche.
Your family seems to be well respected by friends and the community as indicated by Patricia and Richard P. [last name omitted][4]
Dear Diane, Sincere sympathy to you in the passing of your husband. You and Herb have raised a wonderful family.
Therefore, I do not understand the actions of your brother-in-law, Douglas Letsche.

[28] After cutting and pasting past emails which detailed the tasering event and his own attempts to pursue an alleged cover-up, Mr. Lochner’s email continued:

Therefore, if Diane and Herb raised a wonderful family, why is Douglas Letsche indicating he deployed Taser M26-19421 when in fact it was deployed by the ETF when executing the Feeney warrant on August 11, 2006?
Does [first name omitted][5] Lochner, who is autistic, deserve to be treated as a criminal based on the lies of Doug Letsche and the ETF?
Doug Letsche is fooling his family and his friends, but he is not fooling our Lord.
Perhaps, when Doug goes to church this Easter weekend, he will repent his sins and disclose the truth so that [name of defendant’s brother] and his family can finally put closure to this matter after some 18 years.

[29] This email was sent just to Matthew B. and PC Letsche. The next email was sent the same day about five hours later. It was addressed to Matthew and was sent to PC Letsche and many others including, to PC Letsche’s belief, the pastor of his family’s church. This email said:

Hello Matthew
As a police officer and student of the Lord, why is Doug Letsche being rebellious and refusing to speak the truth.
Ask your brother-in-law, Doug Letsche, if he deployed Taser M26-19421 on August 11, 2006 after being assigned to modified duties as a result of injuring his right hamstring in a bed race at the “Taste of the Danforth”?
Kindly let me know his answer.

[30] About five hours after that, Mr. Lochner emailed Matthew B [last name omitted] a third time. Many others were cc’d, including PC Letsche. This third email reviewed Mr. Lochner’s view of the tasering incident and PC Letsche’s connection to it. It contained cut-and-paste contents from past emails and alleged a cover-up. Again, Mr. Lochner asked Matthew to inquire into the incident with his brother-in-law.

Cst. Letsche’s Response to the March 2024 Emails

[31] PC Letsche testified that the next day, he saw an email from Mr. Lochner to someone from his family church. I had no admissible evidence of the email to this person. But PC Letsche testified that he, as part of his safety concerns, spoke to his pastor about laying a criminal complaint against Mr. Lochner.

[32] As a police officer, PC Letsche said, he was used to absorbing “red flags”. But emailing his brother-in-law went beyond an acceptable point of absorption. He believed the fact and content of the emails showed Mr. Lochner had gone through his parents’ obituaries, gleaned family member information from them, and googled family names until he got his brother-in-law’s school board email address.

[33] He was worried about what step Mr. Lochner would take next. He could not rule out the defendant presenting danger to him and to his family. He went to his sergeant and took steps to pursue criminal charges.

[34] As a result of Mr. Lochner’s emails to his brother-in-law, PC Letsche took steps to ensure safety planning was in place for himself and his extended family. He spoke to his pastor about laying a criminal complaint. He religiously carried, and still carries,[6] his gun to and from his home. He remains hyper-conscious of his surroundings. He asked for an officer safety bulletin to be sent out in case Mr. Lochner came to confront him and encountered one of his fellow officers.

Effect of Communications on Cst. Letsche

[35] In cross-examination PC Letsche admitted he had not read every single email Mr. Lochner sent. None of the email content, despite its volume, contained any overt threats and the officer acknowledged this too. Letsche also admitted when he received emails in 2022 and 2023, they were on his mind, but did not cause him to feel harassed. He acknowledged having worked more during those years, including overtime, which the defendant suggested was inconsistent with fear. Even during a recent prep meeting with the Crown and OIC, PC Letsche had not expressed fear.

[36] But, the officer testified, Mr. Lochner’s decision to reach out to family members and how he did it raised more substantive concern in his mind. He deduced that the defendant google searched the names of family members in the obituaries, such as his wife and kids, until he found a relative with a published email address. He considered one of the emails to his brother-in-law a “veiled” threat but was somewhat non-responsive in explaining that further.

[37] In direct examination, PC Letsche’s testimony about fear was measured. He perceived that Mr. Lochner remained focused on and upset with himself, personally, and the TPS. Letsche said he could not rule out Mr. Lochner posing danger to himself and his family. He characterized the steps he took as erring on the side of caution and readying himself for unpredictability.

[38] PC Letsche was less measured in cross-examination, when asked about his emotional response to the March 2024 emails. He agreed with the suggestion that he was concerned for his safety and the safety of his family members. He said he worried Mr. Lochner was growing more frustrated with time and that the defendant continued to believe he was hiding something. He was concerned Mr. Lochner could start to lash out.

[39] He made safety plans in case Mr. Lochner did lash out in ways that put he and his family at risk. He raised safety concerns with family members – even extended family members. He testified the communications, as a whole, caused him to worry about his own safety, his family’s safety, and the safety of officers who worked with him.

[40] I found Cst. Letsche to be a credible and reliable witness. I accepted his testimony. He was straightforward, consistent, and measured in his responses. I discerned no attempts to mislead or exaggerate in his evidence. At times during cross-examination, PC Letsche was non-responsive. I found those instances occasioned no flaw to his credibility and reliability.

[41] I had no doubt that the occasional failure to answer Mr. Lochner’s questions directly was attributable to the often-aggressive manner in which Mr. Lochner conducted his cross-examination.

Applicable Legal Principles

[42] Mr. Lochner is charged under subsection (b) of s. 264(1) and (2) which reads:

264(1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of (b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;

[43] The Crown bears the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts. There was no burden on the defence to call evidence or prove innocence. Mr. Lochner began this trial with the presumption of innocence.

[44] In considering the essential elements of this offence, R. v. Sillipp (1997), 1997 ABCA 346, 120 C.C.C. (3d) 384, (Alta C.A.) is often cited:

• One of the four specified acts of conduct in 264(2)(a-d) must be established;
• It must be established that the complainant was harassed by that conduct;
• It must be established that the defendant knew the complainant was harassed, or was reckless or wilfully blind as to whether the complainant was harassed;
• It must be established that the conduct caused the complainant to fear for their safety, or for the safety of anyone known to them, and;
• It must be established that the complainant’s fear was, in all the circumstances, reasonable.

Were There Repeated Communications?

[45] Beginning with the first component, I found beyond any reasonable doubt that Mr. Lochner repeatedly communicated with Cst. Letsche via email. He did so directly, and he did so indirectly. He did so over the course of eighty-nine emails tendered into the evidentiary record.

[46] The defendant took no issue with this aspect of the test. Even if he had, Rogers business records proved beyond doubt that the email address used to send these messages was associated to Silvano Lochner.

Was the Complainant Harassed?

[47] Secondly, I was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Cst. Letsche was harassed by the repeated communications. R. v. Kosikar (1999), 1999 ONCA 3775, 138 C.C.C.(3d) 217 (Ont. C.A.) held at para. 25:

“…this element of the offence requires the Crown to prove that as a consequence of the prohibited act the complainant was in a state of being harassed or felt harassed in the sense of feeling ‘tormented, troubled, worried continually or chronically, plagued, bedeviled and badgered’.”

[48] These words are not a cumulative collection of what the Crown must prove to establish harassment. As per R. v. Kordrostami (2000), 2000 ONCA 5670, 143 C.C.C.(3d) 488 (Ont. C.A.), establishing any of these factors can constitute harassment. It is not necessary for the Crown to prove a complainant experienced all these emotions, or to prove that these emotions were experienced throughout the duration of the entire timeframe alleged.

[49] I accepted PC Letsche’s testimony about his escalating reaction to Mr. Lochner’s incessant email accusations. He at first accepted it as part of the job, albeit an unpleasant part. He directed Lochner’s emails into a junk mail folder, which I found he did because he did not fear for his safety then. He kept them in mind sufficiently enough to check their content from time to time, looking for red flags that may require action.

[50] No doubt PC Letsche was annoyed by the constant emails accusing him and various other people of criminal behaviour. It rose no higher than that, despite the volume of emails being sent. But that reaction changed in March 2024, when Mr. Lochner reached out to PC Letsche’s civilian brother-in-law.

[51] Those three March 2024 emails cannot be divorced from the history of emails prior. Even before contacting Cst. Letsche through his uninvolved brother-in-law, Cst. Letsche believed the defendant to be focused on him to an unwarranted and unhealthy degree. The earlier emails were incessant and persistent, but devoid of any threat and constant in their theme and tone.

[52] Now, because of the March 2024 emails, Cst. Letsche reasonably believed Mr. Lochner had researched his own personal life. He believed Mr. Lochner went through the obituaries of his deceased family members and mined them for personal information about Letsche. This was blatantly obvious: Lochner cut and pasted condolences that others wrote to the family online and put them in the email to Matthew.

[53] Matthew does not share the same last name as Cst. Letsche. He did have a school board address which was publicly available on the internet. Cst. Letsche concluded that Mr. Lochner must have googled the names of his family members, referenced in his parents’ obituaries, until he found a published email address. That led Mr. Lochner to Matthew, and Mr. Lochner used Matthew to communicate with Letsche.

[54] In other words, Cst. Letsche concluded – I find rightly – that Mr. Lochner’s behaviour had moved from emailing the same incessant complaint to digging into Cst. Letsche’s background and family. His March 2024 emails made a point of letting Cst. Letsche know just how much personal information he had gathered. I accepted that Cst. Letsche was harassed by the emails Mr. Lochner sent.

Did Mr. Lochner know or was reckless or wilfully blind to complainant being harassed?

[55] I found the next element of criminal harassment met beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Lochner was at a minimum reckless to the complainant being harassed by his repeated communications. At this stage, I considered the content of all the emails as well as the repetitious nature of those emails, together with the context in which the emails were sent: R. v. Scuby (2004), 2004 BCCA 28, 181 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (B.C.C.A.) at para. 12. I cautioned myself that recklessness does not mean mere carelessness: R. v. Sillipp, supra, at para. 19.

[56] I found recklessness firmly grounded by the evidence as a whole. One relevant factor was the lengthy timeline engaged during which Mr. Lochner persisted in sending emails. Another factor was the volume of emails the defendant sent, all of which went without a response. The failure to respond to multiple emails would have communicated, to Mr. Lochner, that Cst. Letsche did not want to communicate back.

[57] Mr. Lochner persisted. Indeed, he upped the ante by digging into Cst. Letsche’s personal life and letting him know that fact. I found Mr. Lochner did that, in particular, to provoke a response he so very much wanted.

[58] The content of all emails contributed to this conclusion as well. Not one email communicated an overt threat, but neither were they all innocuous. Mr. Lochner communicated his belief that Cst. Letsche and his colleagues were corrupt. He communicated the belief that Cst. Letsche was part of a cover-up. He obviously bore ill will towards Cst. Letsche. By March 2024, Lochner was asserting that Cst. Letsche was a sinner who would answer to a higher power.

[59] In pursuit of his own aims, Mr. Lochner cared not for the impact his emails had on Cst. Letsche. I found beyond doubt that he was, at a minimum and at its most charitable for Mr. Lochner, reckless as to whether his repeated communications had the effect of harassing Cst. Letsche.

[60] Frankly, by March 2024, harassing PC Letsche was likely Mr. Lochner’s specific goal. He reached out to Cst. Letsche’s family member. He let Letsche know he was doing that, because he cc’d Letsche on the emails to Matthew. Obviously, Mr. Lochner wanted Cst. Letsche to know that he had found, and was communicating with, his brother-in-law.

[61] Mr. Lochner referenced Cst. Letsche’s deceased parents and suggested they had raised him poorly. He suggested Cst. Letsche had sinned in his actions relating to the Lochners, and that he would pay for those sins. These were all pressure points that Mr. Lochner leaned on, in the emails to Matthew, to provoke a response.

[62] It is not criminal to be rude, or disrespectful, or to try and upset someone. But in the context of years of one-sided emails, all focused to some degree on Cst. Letsche and in an unwarranted way, Lochner’s shift of behaviour in March 2024 was like turning the volume on a radio up to maximum, no matter the effect on its listener. Lochner knew, after years of no response, that Letsche was not interested in engaging with him. So he reached into Letsche’s family life, and let him know he was doing that, to get a response. At a minimum, the defendant was reckless as to whether his emails, including his change in approach by March 2024, would have the effect of harassing Cst. Letsche.

[63] Before leaving this point, I must add that in considering Mr. Lochner’s state of mind, I disregarded the contents of a case he provided me. To briefly explain, Mr. Lochner presented a decision to the court, where he was acquitted of criminal harassment. He did this to assist himself in arguing a legal point.

[64] In closing submissions, the Crown invited me to rely on the fact, as set out in the transcript, that Mr. Lochner was present when the elements of criminal harassment were explained by that trial judge. It was like receiving a warning, at one’s door, from police that conduct must stop. That decision was released in October 2021. The emails in the case at bar were sent between 2022 and 2024.

[65] I concluded it would be unfair for me to rely on this case for any evidentiary purpose. I appreciate that he was the individual who presented it to me, not the Crown. But what happened in that other courtroom was not made evidence in our case. Accordingly, Mr. Lochner did not have the opportunity to respond to it, as he would with any other piece of evidence.

Did the conduct cause the complainant to feel fear?

[66] The fourth essential element of discharging the burden to prove a criminal harassment count is fear. I found that, overall, Mr. Lochner’s repeated communications caused the complainant to feel fear. I found this beyond reasonable doubt. I am sure that, before March 2024, Cst. Letsche dismissed the emails as the rantings of an emotionally disturbed person. Streaming them into junk mail strongly suggested these emails caused the officer no fear for his safety. Indeed, he admitted the pre-March 2024 emails did not cause him fear.

[67] I did accept, as credible and reliable, Cst. Letsche’s evidence that when Mr. Lochner sent the March 2024 emails, in the context of the years of emails sent with some focus on Cst. Letsche, the officer felt fear. I accepted he then took steps to address safety planning, and that those steps were taken because he feared for his personal safety. He communicated with fellow officers about the issue, in case Mr. Lochner’s behaviour escalated to stalking him at work.

[68] I accepted that Cst. Letsche spoke to family members about safety planning, and I find he did that because he feared for their safety. He brought the communications back to a supervisors’ attention to pursue criminal charges and again, I accept that he did this because he feared for his safety and his family’s safety. He spoke to his pastor about laying a criminal complaint. I accepted that he did this and that this was, similarly, his response to the fear provoked by the March 2024 emails.

[69] I have no doubt whatsoever that Cst. Letsche took these steps and that he did so because Mr. Lochner’s repeated communications caused him to feel fear.

Was that fear reasonable?

[70] Finally, I must consider whether Cst. Letsche’s fear was reasonable. This must be measured by an objective standard, to ensure convictions are not grounded upon overly sensitive reactions or responses. As per para. 37 of R. v. Wisniewska, 2011 ONSC 6452 (S.C.A.Ct.) Durno J. said:

The objective component requires an assessment of how the reasonable person would have felt in similar circumstances….Making that determination requires a consideration of all the circumstances, including but not limited to, the history and circumstances surrounding the relationship between the parties, the age, sex, and race of the complainant, whether there were explicit directions to the accused to leave the complainant alone, and the duration of the harassment.

[71] Were this court to consider only the emails before March 2024, the answer to this question would be no. Firstly, I have already found Cst. Letsche did not feel fear prior to that point. Had he claimed to, I would have thought that an unreasonable response. Certainly, I would have had a doubt about that. The pre-March 2024 emails were all at least partially focused on Cst. Letsche. But like Cst. Letsche, I interpreted them as harmless emails expressing frustration and sent by someone emotionally unable to process the trauma of his brother’s tasering.

[72] But consideration of the earlier emails could not be divorced from the March 2024 emails Mr. Lochner sent to Cst. Letsche’s brother-in-law. When the evidence was considered as a whole, I found the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that Cst. Letsche’s fear was reasonable.

[73] This conclusion was based upon an assessment of the evidence as a whole, including but not confined to:

• The sheer volume of emails sent to Cst. Letsche, both directly and indirectly;
• The timespan of years during which Mr. Lochner communicated to and about Cst. Letsche;
• Mr. Lochner’s persistence in his attempts to communicate, despite receiving no indication suggesting Letsche would respond or welcomed contact;
• The content of the pre-March 2024 emails, many of which suggested Lochner believed Letsche was part of a conspiracy to cover up tasering Lochner’s disabled brother;
• The quick succession of those March 2024 emails sent by Mr. Lochner;
• The content of the March 2024 emails, which reiterated Lochner’s belief that Cst. Letsche’s actions, in relation to Mr. Lochner and his brother, proved him a sinner who would have to face those sins;
• The fact that those March 2024 emails were effected (and I found they undoubtedly were) by researching Cst. Letsche’s family members online, until Mr. Lochner hit upon a published email address;
• The extension of Lochner’s focus, in March 2024, onto Cst. Letsche’s family and community – his deceased parents, people who noted his parents’ passing online, his brother-in-law, and his church.

[74] When I considered these factors and the evidence as a whole, I was left with no doubt about the reasonableness of Cst. Letsche’s fear. His fear was palpably reasonable.

Conclusion

[75] The Crown has proved all essential elements of the count of criminal harassment beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Lochner must be found guilty.

Released: March 27, 2025
Signed: Justice H. Pringle

Footnotes

[1] Mr. Lochner successfully opposed the Crown’s application to appoint counsel for the complainant’s cross-examination.
[2] Content omitted.
[3] Matthew’s last name was used, by Mr. Lochner, in this email. I have chosen to omit it from this judgment.
[4] Patricia and Richard’s last name was used, by Mr. Lochner, in this email. I have chosen to omit it from this judgment.
[5] I have chosen to omit the first name of Mr. Lochner’s brother from this judgment.
[6] He specified with authorization to do so.